the RNC , the FBI and the FEC

charver said:
Are there rules on how often a network can show adverts?

I rather suspect that there might. Presumably these have changed over the years- i.e. the ad breaks have become longer and more frequent in nature. The prospect of providing a public service over servicing corporate greed would be a welcome thing, no?
Click to expand...

There's no rule on how often a network can show advertisements. The general rule is about 15 minutes of advertising to 45 minutes of programming. Less isn't as profitable, more generally costs you viewers (and therefore profit).

If they shortened a few programs to 35 minutes to fill in 10 minutes with advertising, it would cost them viewers. If they took it out of the advertising time, it would cost them advertising money. There's no net even way to give up the time.
 
cawacko said:
It's not about "corporate greed". It's about the government stepping into industry and unfairly putting one company or several companies at a disadvantage compared to their competition.
Click to expand...

OK how it works here is that, providing political parties recieve a percentage of votes, they get a 5 minute political party broadcast, shown on all the terrestrial tv networks twice at around the same time.

This doesn't apply to satellite tv or cable.

However, there is no political advertising at all aside from this on tv.

it works pretty well, keeping the cost of elections down and everyone normally just switches channels when a political broadcast comes on.
 
Desh said:
So tell me episcurilous what exactly is partisan about posting and discussing such an article?

Is this not current news which will have some pretty big implications in this years elections?

I love being called a partisan for producing Facts which scare the shit out of the people who deserve to have their shit scared.
Click to expand...

I guess it is only non partisan if the politician being critized is the same party as the one doing the criticizing ?

Sheesh going after corruption is not partisan. Not going after the corruption if it is in your same party is unamerican.
 
Watermark said:
Half of America doesn't have internet, and probably about 90% of those that do don't ever bother to use it for political purposes. TV medium and other advertising techniques are by far more efficient ways to get your name spread, and limiting that to the incumbent is idiotic.
Click to expand...

Do you even pay attention to what people are saying or are you just going to continue to play the part of the petulent child who sits around screaming about shit that doesn't apply to the situation?

Desh said quite clearly that you give BOTH the airtime for free. They are after all public airwaves.

Just ask Dean or Obama how important the internet has become. You are also misinformed as to how many Americans have access to the internet. It is closer to 75% that have access.

With Tivo and DVRs TV is becoming less effective anyway. I, like many, blow right on through the commercials and most certainly through political ads. The best way to get a detailed message out is via the internet.

Those that do not pay attention as you say are not going to pay attention regardless of whether you use TV or the internet. Those who wish to inform themselves on the candidates positions are going to access the candidates web sites.... not sit around and wait for a 30 sec ad on tv.... especially given the propensity for TV ads to be hatchet jobs on opponents rather than details on the candidates positions.

Add to that the insane number of debates this cycle and there are plenty of ways for candidates to get their message out without reliance on TV ads.
 
Superfreak said:
Do you even pay attention to what people are saying or are you just going to continue to play the part of the petulent child who sits around screaming about shit that doesn't apply to the situation?
Click to expand...

I stopped reading it about right here. I really don't need you to patronize me, dickwad. It's not right of you to try and get out of every single argument ever with someone younger than you by patronizing them and acting like your so much above them because of their youngness, you senile fucking old fart. All this escape tactic shows is how little you truly understand.
 
Watermark said:
I stopped reading it about right here. I really don't need you to patronize me, dickwad. It's not right of you to try and get out of every single argument ever with someone younger than you by patronizing them and acting like your so much above them because of their youngness, you senile fucking old fart. All this escape tactic shows is how little you truly understand.
Click to expand...

actually, you do need to be patronized, because you clearly ignore the facts and just run around acting like a little kid throwing a tantrum.

I am not trying to get out of any argument you twit. IF YOU WOULD BOTHER TO FUCKING READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE, YOU WOULD LEARN THAT YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT A LONG TIME AGO TO DESH. You lost it again to me. The very fact that Desh and I agree should be an eye opener for you to just how friggin wrong you are.
 
Superfreak said:
actually, you do need to be patronized, because you clearly ignore the facts and just run around acting like a little kid throwing a tantrum.

I am not trying to get out of any argument you twit. IF YOU WOULD BOTHER TO FUCKING READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE, YOU WOULD LEARN THAT YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT A LONG TIME AGO TO DESH. You lost it again to me. The very fact that Desh and I agree should be an eye opener for you to just how friggin wrong you are.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt you even know what anyone is talking about.
 
We are talking about quite a few issues.

Are you referring to the internet still? It's not practical for a person running for sheriff to use the internet to spread his name. It's not practical for a person running for rep. to use the internet to spread his name. Maybe a presidential candidate, or even a senator. Not someone so closed geographically, though.

Even if you give the candidates free airtime (taxing local broadcasters in the process), if you reduce the total amount of exposure candidates can give, it hurts the opposition far worse. The ideal situation for the incumbents would be to have no advertising from either candidate. By reducing the total amount of funds, you are bringing incumbents closer to their ideal situation.
 
Waterbaby said:
We are talking about quite a few issues.

Are you referring to the internet still? It's not practical for a person running for sheriff to use the internet to spread his name. It's not practical for a person running for rep. to use the internet to spread his name. Maybe a presidential candidate, or even a senator. Not someone so closed geographically, though.

Even if you give the candidates free airtime (taxing local broadcasters in the process), if you reduce the total amount of exposure candidates can give, it hurts the opposition far worse. The ideal situation for the incumbents would be to have no advertising from either candidate. By reducing the total amount of funds, you are bringing incumbents closer to their ideal situation.
Click to expand...

yes, there is a difference between running for Sheriff and running for President. The Sheriff is not likely to be buying ANY TV time. He/She is likely to use the internet and more face time with the constituents.

As Desh pointed out to you, it costs less to give them the airtime. You can give them the same amount of airtime and either give the stations a tax break or work it into the deals when they bid on the airwaves. You know they bid on the airwaves.... don't you?

Again, you underestimate the effectiveness that candidates can get from the internet web sites, email, youtube, debates etc.... You also underestimate the effect new technology like Tivo and DVRs has on TV ads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top